Ed Miliband has his head in the clouds

A blog written for Comment is Free about Ed Miliband’s comments about how he will not act to curb aviation emissions because he doesn’t “want to have a situation where only rich people can afford to fly”…

Very interesting – and telling – words this week from Ed Miliband regarding the so-called “right to fly”. The climate change and energy secretary told the Guardian that he didn’t “want to have a situation where only rich people can afford to fly”, and would therefore not be seeking to include aviation within the government’s broad commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050.

“Where I disagree with other people on aviation is if you did 80% cuts across the board, as some people have called for on aviation, you would go back to 1974 levels of flying,” he said. Miliband picked out the airport within his own constituency, Doncaster Sheffield, as an example. “People in my constituency have benefited from being able to have foreign travel which, 40 years ago, the middle classes took for granted,” he said. “There are sacrifices and changes in lifestyle necessary. But the job of government is to facilitate them and understand people’s lives and what they value.”

What Miliband seems to be saying is that flying is now so important to people’s lives in the UK that it deserves to be treated as a special case. It should be largely immune to the tough targets and systematic transition that all other sectors are going to have to experience if exacting carbon reductions are ever to be achieved. So rather than have fair, across-the-board cuts, Miliband is firing the starter gun for every sector to throw up its hands and say that it too deserves special exemption. To take this to its logical conclusion, someone is going to have to make the decision about who deserves such favouritism.

If aviation is going to be allowed to grow and emit without restrictions, another sector is going to have to make up the shortfall. If we really love flying so much, who do we want this to be? The NHS? Universities? Local authorities? If we really want to start prioritising our most valued services and facilities in this manner, then we need to urgently have that discussion.

But I’m not comfortable whenever the class issue is thrown into the ring to support the aviation lobby’s argument. Miliband is the latest person to fall for this old chestnut. It has been a debating tool for years, but it never stands up to scrutiny.

Let’s look at Doncaster Sheffield airport, as Miliband is asking – even if it isn’t wholly representative. It accounted for less than half of 1% of the total number of UK passengers passing through our airports in 2007, according to the latest Civil Aviation Authority figures, but it does have the highest percentage – 94% – of so-called “leisure” travellers of all the UK airports. These are the types of passengers that come in for the most criticism when people are talking about the growth in discretionary flying over the past decade or so. (This category includes “visiting friends and relatives” – so-called VFRs – which is arguably the least discretionary of all the reasons to fly, but that often gets drowned out in this debate.)

What “class” are these passengers? And has there been a significant shift in their demographic profile over the years? ABC1-type analysis seems to largely ignored or viewed as inherently flawed these days, so let’s look at something most people understand – income. Civil Aviation Authority figures (pdf) for 2007/2008 say that the mean household income of leisure passengers using Doncaster Sheffield airport was £41,016. This compares to the latest Office for National Statistics figures, which state that the average UK household income in 2006/07 was £30,000. The mismatch doesn’t exactly lead you to shout “working class all aboard” – and this is for an airport you would consider to support Miliband’s argument given its higher-than-average volume of so-called “cheap flights”.

When the Environmental Change Institute at Oxford University looked at the “socio-demographic characteristics of [UK] air passengers” in its 2006 report Predict and Provide (p29, pdf), it concluded that the “available evidence suggests that flying is largely undertaken by those in richer households, and that most of the growth in flying is coming from people in such households flying more often”. Again, it doesn’t exactly support Miliband’s argument that the skies are now awash with the working class, say, taking mini-breaks to Europe, or visiting their second homes abroad.

1 comment

I am on your blog as its web address was at the end of your enlightening Final Call book

While I agree with what you are saying about flying I do not believe that is the current key issue. Until 15 October the government is seeking the view of the people about electricity feed in tariffs. I suggest by considering this matter householders will need to think how much they want to be paid to invest in putting solar panels on their roofs and this will lead naturally into considering other changes to their lifestyle including flying. Particularly within the current context of the financial pressure on organisations like British Airways and the threat of swine flu. However I will explain more how this matter relates to flying at the end of this piece.

On the Radio 4 programme The World Tonight broadcast on 15/07/09 the new white paper on energy and the other government proposals on Climate Change made on 15/07/09 were discussed.

At the point of 23.13 minutes into the programme the German MP Hermann Scheer, Chairman of the World Council for Renewable Energy was interviewed and explained that the current German payments is 40 cents (of a Euro) per kilowatt hour for 20 years produces payback in 10-12 years, then profit up to the year of twenty…”

The UK government is proposing 26 pence (about 30 cents of a Euro) per kilowatt hour for photovoltaic cells it is less than the amount in Germany but would it still be useful in your view? Hermann Scheer said, “ I think that the payment is not for the moment not adequate, you must start with a fee which enables the creation of a broad market”

In reply to the question, “ In the overall mix of policies which any government now needs to consider in order to deal with decarbonising the production of energy how significant do you believe the feed in tariff idea is?, Hermann Scheer said, “ By far the most successful, the only real successful promotion program that exists, and this can be shown by the numbers, since 2000 we have installed a renewable contribution of renewable energies caused by this law of 15% of the total power consumption, 15% in 9 years”

Later in the programme the campaigner Jeremy Leggett Chairman & Founder of Solarcentury said, “ said the proposed structure was good but the rate disappointing. “

Jeremy Leggett said, “In the paper the target is very clear for all micro generation that is solar, photovoltaic and five other technologies their target is 2% of the British renewable energy total by 2020. The Industry Association for Solar and Europe is on record as saying they can do 12%

Jeremy Leggett explained that Chief Executives of CEF and eon have both said you cannot have 20% renewable and new nuclear.

Apart from this Radio 4 programme The World Tonight I have seen very little comment by the media including yourself. I was wondering if you consider an increase the feed in tariffs is important. From 26 p to say 35 p which could increase the home renewable sector of electricity production from 2% to say 12% by 2020. The other side of the coin would be that rather than about 1.5 million households investing in solar panels about 9 million would. To round off my argument, in this time of recession, I suggest that the additional 7.5 million households would obtain the money to buy the solar panels by cutting back on unnecessary expenditure such as flying.